Corrective Training vs Punishment
Scott Andrew Ewing's article on "smoke sessions" is thought provoking and damning. Should set off some riots in the NCO corps.
My first reaction was negative, and then I re-read the article and had to give credit - the author has done his homework and made his case well, whether we fully agree with the practical effect of his conclusion. I will be interested to see the reactions in the NCO Corps. I thought the relation to COIN was a small stretch, but the overall paper is concise and well argued.
Quote:
Just as comanders are responsible for the climate in their units,
so the Army as an institution is responsible for the moral climate it fosters.
In this article, I will outline some of the contradictions and ambiguities
in Army regulations (ARs) and field manuals (FMs) that make it difficult for
leaders to understand the distinction between corrective training and punishment.
I will argue that ARs, case law, the Office of the Inspector General,
and higher-echelon commanders have, nonetheless, made it clear that such
a distinction exists and must be respected. Failure to recognize and respect
this distinction can and often does lead to illegal abuses of authority. These
abuses of authority within the Army’s ranks, and the cultural undercurrents
that condone these patterns of behavior, cripple efforts to wage an effective
counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign by fostering a mentality of paternalistic
tyranny rather than good stewardship. The moral implications of this mentality
are neither consistent nor compatible with counterinsurgency doctrine,
Quote:
.... an NCO who orders a Soldier to perform duties that are tantamount to punishment is giving an unlawful order.
...
My view is that commanders and NCOs are in some sense victims of a system that is highly resistant to change. I understand that it is difficult within the system to go against accepted cultural norms, but that is precisely why Army culture needs to be fundamentally changed and such changes subsequently supported at all levels.
There are three correlates with the assertions I have made thus far:
*The U.S. Army is culturally handicapped in its ability to occupy Iraq in a humane manner. The systemic acceptance of such illegal practices as “smoke
sessions” is part of a mind-set that has crippled our attempts to implement effective counterinsurgency campaigns.
*The regulations surrounding corrective training, punishment, and “smoke sessions” are confusing and need to be rewritten.
*The problem must first be fully understood by high-ranking officers. To this end, the Army ought to investigate this matter in a substantive way, and encourage Soldiers to candidly testify about these practices without fear of reprisal or prosecution.
Several thoughts on 'Smoking.'
First, it's cyclical. Every war brings an increase in such events. By 1958, the practice was dying down in the Army; Viet Nam brought it back. Transition to the All Volunteer Force dropped it, the Gulf War and the movement of many Ranger qualified NCOs to even non-airborne units from Ranger units (where the practice has a life of its own) increased it. Hopefully, it'll again subside. It does need some local control.
Second; it's needed to an extent -- but sensibly. Officers do not need to do everything and a lot of stuff doesn't rise to the Article 15 level -- particularly when you're going to throw out perfectly good soldiers or Marines (or Sailors or Airmen; even Coasties...) who have a couple. I kept a kid in the barracks for 75 days once, totally illegal but it kept a good troop from getting a career ending Court Martial. So you need to have the capability and it doesn't need to be too finely delineated. That said, it does need careful watching by the senior NCOs and Officers in the Chain of Command. Make no mistake, either they know it happens and are ignoring it -- unless it gets out of hand or to prevent it from getting there -- or they shouldn't have their ranks...
Thirdly, the institution should acknowledge the practice (not codify it) and train the junior NCOs about what's acceptable and what is not (Noting that Congress passes the laws and is responsible for a lot of regulatory word smithing -- they're the ones that took NCOs out of the picture legally...).
We made a bad mistake in 1776 when Washington hired Von Steuben -- the Indian method of training Braves was far better, mentoring and no hectoring.
Still, combat does take a certain toughness and a certain amount of harassment in training is desirable; one should be careful not to eliminate everything, just pare the excesses -- which do occur -- and train people better.
A general comment on his article, I don't disagree with much of it and do agree that he cites some incidents that were overboard. However, his conclusions
Quote:
"●●The U.S. Army is culturally handicapped in its
ability to occupy Iraq in a humane manner. The systemic
acceptance of such illegal practices as “smoke
sessions” is part of a mind-set that has crippled our
attempts to implement effective counterinsurgency
campaigns.
●● The regulations surrounding corrective training,
punishment, and “smoke sessions” are confusing
and need to be rewritten.
●●The problem must first be fully understood
by high-ranking officers. To this end, the Army
ought to investigate this matter in a substantive
way, and encourage Soldiers to candidly testify
about these practices without fear of reprisal or
prosecution."
are, IMO, overkill. He's, it seems, taken a personal hangup and elevated to a massive diatribe. As to his conclusion themselves:
I have no doubt that the first has some validity but my suspicion the effect described is a significant overstatement.
I strongly disagree with the second; the army doesn't need idle and unnecessary harassment -- it needs more bureaucracy even less.
I disagree with the third; He's cited a problem (and at GREAT length, I might add...) -- good for him . However he's elevating it way out of proportion. All that's required is common sense, an acknowledgment of what's need, training -- and supervision.
An honest, although politically incorrect answer
I read the article and agree with other comments that it is well written and researched.
That said IMO the article itself is misguided. I got the impression that the author felt NCO's run smoke sessions on a whim outside thier inherent authority or justification. Looking at the time he spent in service (listed in the notes on the article, I think it was a four year enlistment) I doubt he got that far in the ranks, I dont say that as a slight, I say that to highlight the limited perspective one Soldier gets in one unit for four years. Is the line between on the spot corrections/ additional training blurry... sure. But I have never run a smoke session because I was bored or though it was funny, or out of an obligation to generations of Soldiers before me. I do it to maintain discipline and ultimately because I care for the troops in my charge. (sorry ,if that sounds dramatic but from my foxhole it is true). Giving a physical challenge to my Soldiers in lieu of UCMJ is a lot like correcting my own children. I don’t want to do it, I love and care for them both, but it is necessary for their development, and in my mind looks out more for their welfare in both cases.
For example:
You have a young Soldier E-1/E-4 who leaves his weapon at a training site. Should I recommend UCMJ punishment? Okay, he is 21 married with two kids, what am I signing him up for? He loses pay, so he can’t meet financial obligations without the embarrassing process of AER and ACS loans and grants. Not to mention the time lost by his Squad Leader and PSG in Trial Defense Service appt's., loan application forms, and “special time" with the Commander and 1SG. The Soldier also loses time with his family as he performs extra duty.
Or, should I disassemble his weapon, giving one piece to each NCO in the platoon. The Soldier accepts a physical challenge from each NCO as he reassembles his weapon piece by piece, painful...yes, but he won’t forget his weapon again, plus it still serves as a reminder to other Soldiers who witness that proper accountability for equipment is important.
If I received UCMJ every time I stepped on my own crank while growing up in the Army I would probably still have not received a pay check (16 years later), and might find the need to extend my term of service to complete my extra duty! I needed discipline.
Thankfully I had NCO's who smoked the ever living crap out of me, when I screwed up. As I went to the promotion board for SSG I had no blemishes on my records of recorded UCMJ proceedings.
Soon technology will not be able to overcome the soft underbelly of the Nintendo generation:(
Somebody needs to give responsible tough love, if you don’t have the cajones to do it, or that hurts your sense of morality/justice then kindly step aside.
Check my times stated and your times experienced...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
Ironically my experience is exactly the opposite. During peace-time, the wannabe Rangers and wound-too-tight-around-the-axles NCO’s overused “smoking” and public humiliation for minor infringements on regs. During war-time, the wannabes were not so gung-ho to harass a soldier w/ a loaded weapon and the wound-tight-around-the-axles NCO’s were either in hot water w/ command or had been sent home.
The post Viet Nam period was a long peacetime spell where a lot of bad habits grew and DS/DS wasn't long enough to break the cycle.
Consider also that given a war, there's less time -- and tolerance -- for mundane BS. I've never seen good NCOs back down from squaring away a troop who needed it regardless of said troops weapons possession. Or said troop's attitude...
"smoking" vs "squaring away"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
I've never seen good NCOs back down from squaring away a troop who needed it regardless of said troops weapons possession. Or said troop's attitude...
I think that's the crux of the matter. Most "smoking" sessions I have seen have had little to do w/ "squaring" anyone away. Punishments for accidents that the NCO themselves helped to set the conditions for, or minor rule infractions; "HOLY MACKERAL PRIVATE!!! YOUR BOOTLACE IS UNTUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do 100 push-ups for being 8 up!" etc. Most "squaring" away with any sort of dedicated soldier can be done respectfully and verbally. Hey, soldier, you need to tuck in your bootlace. Has anyone shown you how to use a blousing band?" Yes, there are definitely times when an infraction needs serious immediate consequences (i.e. "smoking") but should not result in UCMJ. However, I have seen too many E-5s that arrived at there rank due to having a good PT score and some wrote memorization skills, and think that screaming and yelling = leadership to have the same blind faith that the NCO corp. can self regulate effectively. I have also made soldiers do pushups as a team-leader, before anyone asks; and I will continue to use that particular motivational tool in the future.
Reed
Reeed, you obviously had some dealings with some bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
I think that's the crux of the matter. Most "smoking" sessions I have seen have had little to do w/ "squaring" anyone away. Punishments for accidents that the NCO themselves helped to set the conditions for, or minor rule infractions; "HOLY MACKERAL PRIVATE!!! YOUR BOOTLACE IS UNTUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do 100 push-ups for being 8 up!" etc...
units and NCOs -- or that is beyond overstatement. :D
Quote:
However, I have seen too many E-5s that arrived at there rank due to having a good PT score and some wrote memorization skills, and think that screaming and yelling = leadership to have the same blind faith that the NCO corp. can self regulate effectively.
It's not blind faith nor is it ten or 12 years experience, it's a lifetime of being, doing and watching. Frankly, those things you cite do not happen in good units. I'm sorry you experienced that and I guess that's where a lot of the negativity comes from but, while certainly such bad incidents have happened in the past, do now and will occur, I contend they're the exception rather than the rule. Supervision is needed, no question. Good NCOs provide it.
Quote:
I have also made soldiers do pushups as a team-leader, before anyone asks; and I will continue to use that particular motivational tool in the future.
I've never dropped a man for a pushup nor have I ever seen that as a good tool for much of anything. No number of pushups will clean a dirty weapon or latrine...
ADDED: I flat forbade anyone who worked for me directly to use pushups as a tool and also discouraged it in NCOs who worked in subordinate units by insisting that they get down and knock 'em out one for one with Joe.
Like I said, you've got a units you've been in problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reed11b
100 push-ups for untucked bootlace would be an exageration but I have had NCO's drop soldiers in my team for 30-50 pushups for BDU chest pocket unbuttoned (soldier took a lot of notes), boot strings untucked and dirty boots.
Sounds like an or some NCOs with too little to do to me. What did you do about it?
Quote:
Not ok when you are not the soldiers TL, SL or PltSgt. Correct the soldier and I (as the TL) will determine if more needs to be done.
Agreed.